Article published in:Dialogue in institutional settings
Edited by Franca Orletti and Letizia Caronia
[Language and Dialogue 9:1] 2019
► pp. 42–64
Staged conflicts in Austrian parliamentary debates
This paper analyzes the rhetorical formats used by Austrian members of parliament (MPs) to express disagreement with previous speakers during the so-called ‘inaugural speech debates’. During these debates, MPs position themselves publicly as either government or opposition party representatives. Disagreeing with previous debate contributions represents a positioning practice that focuses on the interpersonal plane of interaction. The strict procedural rules of the debates, however, prevent MPs from engaging in genuine conflict talk. MPs rather use four rhetorical formats for signalling conflict with a previous speaker. This paper analyzes these strategies as well as their use by different groups of MPs and discusses their face aggravating/ impoliteness potential. Finally, it relates the results to previous studies of face work in political discourse.
Keywords: political discourse, parliamentary debates, conflict communication, discourse representation, face work, face aggravation
Published online: 05 July 2019
[ p. 62 ]References
Bull, Peter, Judy Elliot, Derrol Palmer and Libby Walker
Du Bois, John W.
2007 “The Stance Triangle”. In Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, ed. by Robert Englebretson, 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://benjamins.com/catalog/pbns.164.07du.
[ p. 63 ]
Hess-Lüttich, Ernest W. B.
Kadar, Daniel Z. and Michael Haugh
Leech, Geoffrey Neil and Mick Short
Muntigl, Peter and William Turnbull
Zima, Elisabeth, Geert Brone and Kurt Feyaerts[ p. 64 ]